I think the LessWrong post about the dog longevity company gave an incomplete summary of the evidence related to IGF-1 inhibitors and longevity. According to the post, Loyal (the company) was basically observing correlation (small dogs live longer than big dogs, and also have lower IGF-1) and assuming causation. But the post doesn't mention that a causal link between IGF-1 inhibition and longevity has been established and replicated in model organisms, including worms and mice:
Of course showing that a drug works in mice definitely doesn't guarantee that it'll work in dogs or humans (looks like IGF-1 inhibitors don't work to increase longevity in humans). There's even the meme where people append "IN MICE" to hyped-up science headlines to more accurately reflect the results they're reporting on. But still, I think this evidence is worth noting and the LessWrong post was incomplete without it.
Anyway I might write a longer post on this later, but I'm generally in favor of a right-to-try with medicine. I think it's good that the FDA is allowing sales of this drug. I forget where I heard this (maybe from an ACX post?) but it's kinda crazy that if a medicine definitely DOESN'T work, it's completely unregulated and freely accessible (homeopathy, essential oils, "alternative medicine"). But if a medicine actually MIGHT work, then it becomes very highly regulated.
I think the LessWrong post about the dog longevity company gave an incomplete summary of the evidence related to IGF-1 inhibitors and longevity. According to the post, Loyal (the company) was basically observing correlation (small dogs live longer than big dogs, and also have lower IGF-1) and assuming causation. But the post doesn't mention that a causal link between IGF-1 inhibition and longevity has been established and replicated in model organisms, including worms and mice:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04805-5
Of course showing that a drug works in mice definitely doesn't guarantee that it'll work in dogs or humans (looks like IGF-1 inhibitors don't work to increase longevity in humans). There's even the meme where people append "IN MICE" to hyped-up science headlines to more accurately reflect the results they're reporting on. But still, I think this evidence is worth noting and the LessWrong post was incomplete without it.
Anyway I might write a longer post on this later, but I'm generally in favor of a right-to-try with medicine. I think it's good that the FDA is allowing sales of this drug. I forget where I heard this (maybe from an ACX post?) but it's kinda crazy that if a medicine definitely DOESN'T work, it's completely unregulated and freely accessible (homeopathy, essential oils, "alternative medicine"). But if a medicine actually MIGHT work, then it becomes very highly regulated.